As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Through the Looking Glass

We highlighted Box Boy Gage's current trip to Ireland and the fact that he was sharing a stage with other flavors of Kook Aid: anti-fluoridation nutbars, anti-vaxxers, and mind-control fruitcakes. Of course, part of the reason we highlighted that was because associating Gage with these other nuts just goes to show what a lunatic he is.

Anyway it occurred to me that it was a little odd that each of us is using the other's foe to bash our particular opponent. "Look at these crazy people Richard/Andrew is hanging around with now!"

Why is it odd? Well, think about it for a second. I know very little about vaccines and next to nothing about the Wakefield controversy. And I suspect that Seth Mnookin is not an expert on 9-11 Truthers and their claims. We each know in a general sense that the other's opponents are generally discredited, and that's about all we need to know.

So why do we do it? That's the question I pondered last night as I trundled off to bed, and here's what I came up with. Those of us who took logic may remember the Venn Diagram, which is a way of representing groups. For example, here's a very simple Venn Diagram showing Truthers:As you can see, there is a subset of the overall population who are Truthers. Now let's add the Anti-Vaxxers:So we have two subsets now of the General Population: Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers. But we really haven't represented things quite correctly here, because now there is a third group: The people who are both Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers. There is overlap between the two groups:But we're still not done yet. Among the Truthers there is some overlap with the Anti-Vaxxers (light blue area). There are also Truthers who are not Anti-Vaxxers (deeper blue area) but who are not concerned about associating with them. And there's a third group: Truthers who are horrified that their movement is being associated with the Anti-Vaxxer contingent, and realize this discredits them:As you can see, there is a corresponding contingent of Anti-Vaxxers who are horrified that their cause is being associated with the 9-11 nutjobs.

Of course, we haven't really completed all the possibilities. Rather than Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers, substitute "Potential Truthers" and "Potential Anti-Vaxxers". And you'll then see that there's a subset of Potential Anti-Vaxxers who would be horrified to learn that this cause they're curious about is associated with the blackshirts chanting, "9-11 was an inside job!" Who might pause and realize that it's just another bit of crankery.

And, in essence, that's who Seth's post is aimed at:

Memo to the parents (and the press): The next time someone tells you the MMR vaccine causes autism (or pitches you a story on the “controversy” over the measles vaccine and autism), remember — this is the man whose discredited, debunked research is the source for all of that.

149 Comments:

Even the truthaction crazies are using this on each other now. The recent traffic there consists largely of one half urging the other half to forget about Gage and Jones based on their recent conspiracy associations.

That vulich fellow has a really good theory too: the 9/11 Truth leadership is engaged in a conspiracy to discredit the movement by associating it with conspiracies.

I think it's pretty simple: if you're dumb/ignorant/insane enough to fall for one conspiracy theory, you'll probably fall for them all, and that's why con artists like Gage and Wakefield cross-pollinate. They're looking for more dupes to make money off of.

It's a sliding scale. A person who only holds one opinion outside the mainstream is not necessarily a lunatic, and deserves some consideration. A person who holds two opinions which lie outside the mainstream deserves less consideration. And so on, until you get to the person who clings to every conceivable conspiracy theory, who is clearly a lunatic and can be written off without a second though. The more crazy shit you believe, the easier it is for others to dismiss you.

I wonder what it is that makes it so hard to truthers and the like themselves to realize what the connection by me. 9/11 Truth attracts every crazy individual and is grouped with every crazy theory, and truthers just pass it off as "guilt by association". Or maybe, I don't know, could 9/11 Truth just be equally crazy?

At its heart, the quest for 9/11 truth is about the indisputable fact that the government has not been honest with us. The 9/11 Commissioners tell us that NORAD lied to them, and yet there have been no prosecutions and nobody got fired. That is a fact. 28 pages of the report from the Joint Inquiry have been redacted. That is a fact. 70% of the 9/11 Widows' 300 questions were not even addressed by the 9/11 Commission, let alone answered. That is a fact.

The movement has attracted a bunch of conspiracy-spouting attention-seekers, and y'all like to point and giggle and laugh at each other's lame jokes,but the damning facts remain. It is a 9/11 Truth movement, and in your attempts to characterize it as a 9/11 Loony Conspiracy Theory movement you're just whistling past the graveyard.

At its heart, the quest for 9/11 truth is about the indisputable fact that the government has not been honest with us.---------------No, at it's heart there are plenty of people who PRETEND to know alot about something which isn't relevent to anything, including an investigation. Claiming to have evidence for 10 years isn't saying much about the Truth Movement nor their followers, only that the Truth Movement attracts the weakminded and follish into thinking there's something "wrong" with the official account when in reality there's nothing wrong with it. Truthers point out the littlest details that don't mean shit to anyone.

y'all like to point and giggle and laugh at each other's lame jokes,but the damning facts remain. ----------Without evidence, you have no such thing called "facts". Just arguements made out of thin air so you can act like a child rather than an adult when someone tells you that you're in the wrong.

Just you saying that you have "facts" makes me laugh, cause I know full well that without evidence to prove those facts you've got nothing. LOL! What a fucking trip you are Brian!

"At its heart, the quest for 9/11 truth is about the indisputable fact that the government has not been honest with us."

What do you know about honesty. You lie about stalking Carol, and you lie about 9/11 hero Willie Rodriguez. When challenged to a debate you run and hide. This is an undisputable fact.

"The 9/11 Commissioners tell us that NORAD lied to them, and yet there have been no prosecutions and nobody got fired. That is a fact."

Except that it's not a fact, it is your twister version of the truth. Nobody at NORAD waa fired because nobody did anything wrong. No crime.I know witch hunts make cowards feel good, Brian, but NORAD did everything that it could on 9/11. Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is for morons, which is why you do it.

"28 pages of the report from the Joint Inquiry have been redacted. That is a fact."

So what? You won't accept what is written on those pages anyway. Quit playing games.

"70% of the 9/11 Widows' 300 questions were not even addressed by the 9/11 Commission, let alone answered. That is a fact."

Actually this is you biggest and cheapest repeat lie. Maybe 20 of those "questions" deal with the actual attacks of 9/11. The rest are paranoid-political theater questions.

You hide behind the widows because you are a pathological liar and psychopath. You claim to care about the widows yet the very existence of the 9/11 truth movement is a painful insult to those who lost family and friends in the attacks. Not that you care.

You are mentally ill, and that makes you the poster-boy for the troof movement.

At its heart, the quest for 9/11 truth is about the indisputable fact that the government has not been honest with us.

...which would be an indisputable fact regardless of whether or not the context was 9/11. The president could tell you what he had for breakfast and there'd be detail left out for national security purposes. Of course the government hasn't been 100% honest. Nor should that be a reasonable expectation. Sure, it's not ideal, but that doesn't mean it should be expected. Just because there are things they probably haven't told us doesn't incline towards a new investigation, let alone prove conspiracy.

The truth is that this is something you hide behind. After 10 years of having your arguments refuted and lacking any real evidence whatsoever, you begin to phrase your points as questions. The assertion is there, but it is hidden under a veil of curiosity. You know that there are certain indisputable facts that don't prove or even suggest anything that would benefit your movement, but you use them because they are, indeed, factual, and if you phrase these points just the right way, you can create the illusion that it actually IS something that benefits your movement. Hey, I acted the same way in my truther days, before I realized that these points lacked merit. You, however, will press onward with it, because discounting lies and falsehoods, you and your 9/11 truth constituents have nothing else to fall back on.

The movement has attracted a bunch of conspiracy-spouting attention-seekers,

Your perception is a bit skewed here. It's more accurate to say that the movement is composed almost exclusively of conspiracy-spouting attention-seekers. The responsible* wing is currently about eight to ten people.

*The "responsible" wing of the Truth Movement, far as I can tell, is the one waiting for the government to confirm that it carried out 9/11 and then covered it up.

It is a 9/11 Truth movement, and in your attempts to characterize it as a 9/11 Loony Conspiracy Theory movement you're just whistling past the graveyard.

And here's a perfect example of Brian trying to sound important. He's an unemployed janitor with no friends, no family, and nothing to do in his life except post this nonsense all over the internet. He needs 9/11 truth to give him the illusion of importance because he has nothing else going on in his life.

Wrong Brian. The point is that the 9/11 Commission says they know what happened, and what happened is that 19 hijackers from Al Queda crashed 4 planes into 2 skyscrapers, 1 govt. building, & a field in Pennsylvania. But you don't care about that, do you Brian? You only care about the patchwork of BS you can stream together to make your paranoia seem like something that is within eyesight of reality.

Something of note about he typical dissonance that goes on in the truther mindset is distinguishing between the 9/11 Commission and "the govt". When he wants to prove something he cites by name to give it an air of rationality, but then when he wants to employ his paranoia he refers the "the govt" lying. That way truthers can paint a broad brush against any govt evidence that disputes their BS, while being opportunistic to the pieces that they chop up for their own uses.

I was actually more surprised that Andrew Wakefield appeared at this thing than Richard Gage. Richard Gage has always lied that he isn't a conspiracy theorist and yet on several occasions when he's been given enough rope he ties it to Gulf of Tonkin/Pearl Harbor/Lusitania/USS Maine "false flags" etc... So he's been multi-kooking for some time now. But Andrew Wakefield's anti-vax kookery, unlike the Truthers, did appear in a peer-reviewed medical journal - The Lancet - and did have some mainstream support. The fact that he's now lined up with all these people IS actually more surprising than that Gage is there.

Ben Goldacre's Bad Science is a good blog and a good book to look into the Wakefield fiasco.

I am 100% sure that there are a handful of pre-9/11 facts that we still don't know, but they won't be game-changers. We will one day read about how the CIA's counter-terror people discussed airliners as weapons in more detail than has been aknowledged.

I would love to know what Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Burger, stole from the National Archives.

At the end of the day Al Qaeda hijacked four planes. Two hit each tower of the WTC, one hit the Pentagon, and the last one was brought down as the passengers fought to retake the plane. Whatever secret stuff hidden away in government files will not change any of this story.

Arcteris, I hope that some day you outgrow your lazy cynicism. There is plenty of evidence--the coverup for starters. Let's have the redacted 28 pages.

GMS, your story does not explain why the intelligence failures, ignored warnings, NORAD's lack of air defense, why nobody got fired, or the coverups in the official investigations.

MGF, what difference does it make what Sandy Berger stole? Is there any doubt that Richard Clarke warned Condi about al Qaeda, and the CIA warned, and 13 foreign countries warned, and Condi and W ignored them all?

Your argument is like: "Your daughter is dead. And whether she was tortured or not, no matter who did or did not do it, and whether the investigation was adequate or not, nothing will bring her back. So move on."

GMS, your story does not explain why the intelligence failures, ignored warnings, NORAD's lack of air defense, why nobody got fired, or the coverups in the official investigations.

Nobody cares.

Your argument is like: "Your daughter is dead. And whether she was tortured or not, no matter who did or did not do it, and whether the investigation was adequate or not, nothing will bring her back. So move on."

No, his argument isn't like that at all. The reason you think that is because you're a glue-sniffing lunatic who wears women's underwear while spending every waking hour squealing about invisible widows on the internet.

"MGF, what difference does it make what Sandy Berger stole? Is there any doubt that Richard Clarke warned Condi about al Qaeda, and the CIA warned, and 13 foreign countries warned, and Condi and W ignored them all?"

...and now we see Brian's political blindness. "What difference does it make what Sandy Berger stole?"...this from a self-described crusader for the truth? Do you understand that 9/11 was Al Qaeda's SECOND attack on the WTC? Who cares what Richard Clarke told Rice? What the fuck was Big Dick Clarke doing between the attack of 1993 and 2001? He apologized to the families during his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission because in the end it was his fault, and his fault alone. He had eight years to get bin Laden and roll up Al Qaeda. He didn't. It is reasonable to assume that this was a result of his superiors in the Clinton Administration, and his direct superior was Sandy Burger.

That's why it matters, you idiot.

"Your argument is like: "Your daughter is dead. And whether she was tortured or not, no matter who did or did not do it, and whether the investigation was adequate or not, nothing will bring her back. So move on.""

No my argument is your daughter is dead, we know who did it. We have some of them in custody and we shot the ring-leader in the face. However Brian Goode wants us to release all of the gory details so that he can mentally masterbate over your daughter's mutilated body so he can feel important. Sure we can release the crime scene photos, autopsy photos/report, police notes, but the only reason to do this is so that Brian ca get his jollies because - we have your daughter's killers.

Who cares what Clarke told Rice? Anybody who wants to know why Rice didn't do her job as National Security Advisor and prevent al Qaeda attacks that were warned of by 13 countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA. AL Qaeda's airliners-into-buildings plot had been known since 1995.

What did Clarke do? He prepared a plan to go after al Qaeda militarily and by interfering with their financial networks. A plan that was ignored by Dr. Rice.

Here's what Clarke said:

The former counterterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton White Houses apologized Wednesday to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying, “Your government failed you.” But he placed the bulk of the blame on President Bush, accusing his administration of not making terrorism “an urgent issue.”

GMS, your story does not explain why the intelligence failures, ignored warnings, NORAD's lack of air defense, why nobody got fired, or the coverups in the official investigations.

Yours doesn't account for explosives or any of the other nonsense you choose to believe. Fact is you want a wholly new set of investigations based on the incompetence & negligence of a few, your Monday morning quarterbacking. Noting you have presented and nothing in the 9/11 CR shows complicity. Keep cherry picking.

"Democracy"? Since when is the US a "democracy"? The US is a republic based on the rule of law, which is defined in the US constitution, not a "democracy." A democracy is a tyranny of the majority, while the US constitution and Bill of Rights are designed specifically to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

As anyone can plainly see, the goat fucker can't get grade school-level civics right without making gross errors. And you demand that we accept your cockamamie idea's as concerns the collapse of the Twin Towers?

"What did Clarke do? He prepared a plan to go after al Qaeda militarily and by interfering with their financial networks. A plan that was ignored by Dr. Rice."

Neat-O! What did he do the other six and a half years? Oh that's right, he whined a lot. He also got in the way of ALEC Station's work. Dr. Rice wasn't there for any of that. It is interesting that you hang it all on the administration which had been in office eight months, but not the one that was in power for eight years.

It is an example of your delusionary prejudice. You claim you want justice yet it is clear to everyone that you (like most troofers) are on your little witch hunt.

Maybe I mispell Burger/Berger's name to further drive you nuts. It seems to be working too.

MGF, you make obvious where you're coming from when you try to give a pass to the administration that grounded the Predator Drone, ignored warnings from 3 FBI offices, 13 foreign countries, the CIA, the NSC counterterrorism expert, and the former National Security Advisor. One of the first things Bush did in office was order the FBI to go easy on the Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden.

Name one thing the Bush administration did before 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks in the USA.

Your argument is like: "Your daughter is dead. And whether she was tortured or not, no matter who did or did not do it, and whether the investigation was adequate or not, nothing will bring her back. So move on."

What the fuck? That's not even close to what it's like. It would be more like:

"Your daughter is dead. But the good news is that we know who did it, how they did it, why they did it, and we've already sent the military after the mastermind to kill him. There are some details we can't share due to legal and security issues, but I hope the knowledge that our thorough investigation has yielded many answers and led to the death of the man responsible for all of this."

"Name one thing the Bush administration did before 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks in the USA."

Nothing.

This has never been in dispute. I should point out that no President since FDR can point to any policy or operation to prevent terror attacks by foreign terrorists within the U.S., terror before 9/11 was either a political issue or a law enforcement problem.

"you try to give a pass to the administration that grounded the Predator Drone"

The Predator was still new. Then there was the issue of conducting a military operation over forein territory being illegal. Plus it has been confirmed that even had Bush gone after bin Laden the Pakistani ISI would have warned Al Qaeda. So yes I give Bush a pass, but only because up until September 10th, 2001, I would have thought he was using terror as a wedge issue for political theater.

"ignored warnings from 3 FBI offices, 13 foreign countries, the CIA, the NSC counterterrorism expert, and the former National Security Advisor."

Not one of those warning detailed an attack by hijacked jetliners. Sandy Berger had his head so far up Saudi Arabia's ass he used their prostate as a footstool.

"One of the first things Bush did in office was order the FBI to go easy on the Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden."

First, when did the FBI get rough with the Saudis about anything? The White House doesn't have that level of influence within the FBI, but Congress does. Take a civic class some time. Second, the bin Laden family thing has been a staple of troofer lies since day one.

MGF, I guess you missed the fact that Clinton fired cruise missiles at Osama, and blew up his aspirin factory in the Sudan. I guess that while you were becoming an expert on Sandy "Burger" you missed the fact that he's asked the DoD for commando raids on the al Qaeda camps and that Richard Clarke had prepared a detailed plan to go after al Qaeda both militarily and by interfering with their finances.

How could the Pakistani ISI warn Osama about Predator flights done by the CIA? How can you give Bush a pass based on what your opinion of his actions wold have been in 2001? How is that logical? Was he supposed to put catering to your ignorance above doing his job?

Ian, you can't spell Lorie Van Auken's name and, like an 8-year old girl, you think it's cute. It's not.

snug.bug said... "MGF, I guess you missed the fact that Clinton fired cruise missiles at Osama"

and then you wrote this little gem:

"How could the Pakistani ISI warn Osama about Predator flights done by the CIA?"

Why wasn't bin Laden in the camp when the cruise missiles arrived? Because the Pakistani ISI called to warn him that missiles were on the way. The Clinton Administration had to get permission from Pakistan to use its air space first. Everybody who has read a newspaper, or watched TV knows about this except you.

" I guess that while you were becoming an expert on Sandy "Burger" you missed the fact that he's asked the DoD for commando raids on the al Qaeda camps and that Richard Clarke had prepared a detailed plan to go after al Qaeda both militarily and by interfering with their finances."

And yet nothing was done by the Clinton White House. Berger and Clarke's proposed commando raids looked great on paper, but were not realistic in any way. That's why the Pentagon told them "no" (yes, the Pentagon can tell the President no). Each plan required that there would be no civilian casualties, and no US casualties. Neither request is realistic, especially in Afghanistan where AQ allowed family members to reside in the camps.

On the bin Laden raid there were at least two civilians killed, and we lost a helicopter. That was on a raid launched from inside of the same country against a small ground force. A similar raid in 1999 would have been more costly, especially carried out in the way that Clarke and Sandy Booger had drawn the plans up.

"How can you give Bush a pass based on what your opinion of his actions wold have been in 2001?"

I give him a pass just as I do Clinton, GHW Bush, and Reagan. They didn't understand the problem because their CIAs and State Departments didn't understand the ultimate threat.

Also..."wold"? WTF is wold oh master spell checker? Wold?

Let me throw in one last question: Why does any of this matter, Brain?

You think that nanothermite was used to bring the buildings down as part of a larger conspiracy to go to war in Iraq. So what difference does it make what Bush did or didn't do prior to 9/11 against foreign terror? You claim that this was a domestic staged attack by the American power elite, so Bush could have nuked Afghanistan on February2nd, 2001, and the attack baboons still would have painted their magic explosives in the towers and blew them up...right?...unless you are realizing that you are wrong about all of this?

MGF, the Clinton Administration had to warn Pakistan to fire cruise missiles through its airspace. Did they warn Pakistan of their 15 drone missions in Afghanistan in the fall of 2000? Did Pakistan warn bin Laden then? Is that why they spotted him 5 times?

The Clinton White House prepared a plan to go after al Qaeda, and they would have implemented it in 2000 if Al Gore had been allowed to take office. Fact is, Clinton wanted commando raids and the DoD said no. By that time they decided not to start a war in the last months of their administration. They gave the plan to Condi and she ignored it.

WIllie Rodriguez's bitch says: The Clinton White House prepared a plan to go after al Qaeda, and they would have implemented it in 2000 if Al Gore had been allowed to take office. Fact is, Clinton wanted commando raids and the DoD said no. By that time they decided not to start a war in the last months of their administration. They gave the plan to Condi and she ignored it.

Now the bitch is an expert in National Security and have access to Condi and Clinton staff besides his google skills. Wow, I am impressed! why aren't you then doing something valuable with all that knowledge and solve the 9/11 puzzle since you are so good?Last time I checked the CIA was hiring good analytical experts, you can apply there and solve all the troubles plus have access to the information you very much want. Wait!!! he can't even call C-Span to validate his claims! oh wishful thinking Mr. Bond.... or should I say...Bitch!

Sabba, I don't need to be an expert in national security but only read TIME magazine. I sincerely hope that this country can clean up its act so that I might in good conscience consider working for the CIA. Under present circumstances that is out of the question.

But at least I can claim that I stood up to the truther groupthink to take down the 9/11 con artist Willie Rodriguez, who stole his story from the dead hero Pablo Ortiz.

I didn't run away. I tried to find an alternative venue. Willie wasn't interested in an alternative venue and he even ran away from here after I pointed out that he stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz.

So, Brian has 'studied' the Madrid fire enough to tell Ian that the building was mostly concrete, and therefore only a partial collapse, but has not studied it enough to admit the collapsed section was the steel-framed section.

Willie's bitch, Brian Good says: But at least I can claim that I stood up to the truther groupthink to take down the 9/11 con artist Willie Rodriguez, who stole his story from the dead hero Pablo Ortiz.

There you go again, I thought we all told you , bitch, not to derail the topics with your Willie Rodriguez's Obsessions. Waiting for Pat to remove that to show you a little reminder! and for the record, you ran away from him , bitch!

What makes you think I'm scared of Willie Rodriguez? I was scared of participating in something that had the potential to hurt innocent third parties, since Willie had shown a most unheroic tendency to employ human shields. I thus had to insist on responsible moderation, and Pat had already shown a willingness to publish private emails and gave me no reason to think that he gave proper consideration to their doubtful authenticity.

The fact that you ran away squealing and crying from a debate with him.

I was scared of participating in something that had the potential to hurt innocent third parties, since Willie had shown a most unheroic tendency to employ human shields.

False. You're scared of Rodriguez because you know he's a hero and you're a liar.

I thus had to insist on responsible moderation, and Pat had already shown a willingness to publish private emails and gave me no reason to think that he gave proper consideration to their doubtful authenticity.

False. You're scared of him because he exposed you as the sex stalker and failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement that you are.

When you refused to debate him on SLC, then claim it wasn't him even though it was him. Maybe you're not scared, you just lack the ability to debate...because you lie about Willie Rodriguez.

" was scared of participating in something that had the potential to hurt innocent third parties, since Willie had shown a most unheroic tendency to employ human shields."

Really? The 9/11 Truth movement is all about hurting third parties by smearing the passengers of United 93, by lying about NORAD, and lying about AA77. Then when we back you into a corner you employ human shields by saying that you are only doing this for the windows. Essentially you condemn yourself.

"I thus had to insist on responsible moderation, and Pat had already shown a willingness to publish private emails and gave me no reason to think that he gave proper consideration to their doubtful authenticity."

Translation: I didn't want to debate Willie because I couldn't control the outcome, or rig the debate so that Willie lost.

I didn't squeal and cry about anything. Willie didn't expose me as anything. Mostly he just has his sock puppets tell whopping lies about me, and then has Kevin Barrett go around repeating them. There's no reason for me to fear Willie Rodriguez. All he can do is lie about me.

MGF, I don't lie about Willie Rodriguez, and I was right to suspect that the poster here "William Rodriguez" might not be the con artist in New Jersey who stole Pablo Ortiz's story. There are over 1000 William Rodriguezes in the United States.

I didn't want to debate Willie at SLC for the reasons I shared above. I could not get any cooperation from Willie in finding another venue. I offered to give Carol Brouillet control over the outcome. The fact that she does not want that only shows that the facts are on my side.

Since Willie has shown an most unheroic tendency to hide behind human shields, and Pat seemed to show interest in publicizing private emails of dubious authenticity, I decided that a SLC forum could not be trusted to show proper concern for the privacy of innocent third parties. If you can suggest an alternative forum, perhaps you can convince Willie to participate.

There's no need to debate. Willie's not in the news, he's not on the blogs, he's a non-issue. He's a washed-up con artist, nothing more.

No you're not. You ran away squealing and crying from an offer to debate. Plus, Carol Brouillet wants nothing to do with you because you're a perverted sex stalker. You know this, which is why you "challenge" Rodriguez to debate on that show, because you know she'll never let you on the show.

Brian Good ( Willie's Bitch) says:There's no need to debate. Willie's not in the news, he's not on the blogs, he's a non-issue. He's a washed-up con artist, nothing more.

There you go again lying.Last time your claim was that he did not appeared anywhere for 3 years and you were proven wrong. Several tours after and you still insist he is non-issue. Of course, because he is not selling anymore your brand of whisky patter about 9/11. I bet you Willie will have more coverage worldwide than any truther combined this September 11th. Wanna bet?Wait you never have bet with me once! since you always loose without betting!

WIlliam Rodriguez said: Hey Brian, I called Carol yesterday to check things out and compare notes. I also corroborated certain things and I am totally sure that she will not have you on her show. If you think I am lying, go ahead, communicate directly with her.

Brian Good Says:"That is why I must insist on responsible editing of any debate."

William Rodriguez said:I forfeit any rights to edit, manipulate or any claims to my image to any of the recordings made of the debate. Also for the record and as far as I personally know, Carol Brouillet will NOT have Brian Good on his show, ever, so this is an excuse by the alleged stalker. I hope this clears the way to the debate with this alleged stalker.

Ian, I will be this coming Tuesday at Ground Zero for a photo-shoot with a National Magazine. I know you are close to the area. Let's meet for lunch and compare some notes. Send me a private E-mail to william@william911.com

Carol will not have me on her show? That wouldn't be surprising even if it's true, because she invested her credibility heavily in William and she knows that the facts show him to be a common con artist.

William_Rodriguez, you steal your glory from the true heroes of 9/11, people like Pablo Ortiz and Frank DeMartini. If you want to be a true hero you will explain why you lied--otherwise you will go down in history as nothing more than the despicable con artist that you are.

What national magazine is shooting you? Arctic Beacon? Veterans Today?

Ian, I will be this coming Tuesday at Ground Zero for a photo-shoot with a National Magazine. I know you are close to the area. Let's meet for lunch and compare some notes. Send me a private E-mail to william@william911.com

Right. You're a disgusting pervert who stalked her and tried to wreck her marriage.

William_Rodriguez, you steal your glory from the true heroes of 9/11, people like Pablo Ortiz and Frank DeMartini. If you want to be a true hero you will explain why you lied--otherwise you will go down in history as nothing more than the despicable con artist that you are.

Poor Brian, he can't stop squealing from all the times Rodriguez pwn3d him.

Oooo, look at Ian running away squealing from a chance to meet his hero Willie Rodriguez!

I didn't stalk anybody, Carol never says I did, and Willie can not dispute my three irrefutable points to which he won't, and can't, reply:

1. You stole the story of Pablo Ortiz, a 9/11 hero who saved dozens of people by breaking down doors and letting trapped people out and who died himself when WTC1 fell down.

2. Your claim that you saved hundreds is verified by no one, proven by death statistics to be untrue, and depends on a belief that any fireman, cop, security guard, janitor, or architect can see in an instant is a lie--the notion that people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for an Angel of God with a Key of Hope to come and set them free.

3. Since the summer of 2007 you have been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield to try to intimidate me and to distract from your lies and delay the day when your fraudulence is exposed to all.

Oooo, look at Ian running away squealing from a chance to meet his hero Willie Rodriguez!

Brian, I know you're not very bright, but try to keep up: Rodriguez offered to have lunch with me just as he offered to debate you. The difference is that I never posted endless dumbspam here and all over the internet about how he was too scared to have lunch with me. You did exactly that with regards to a debate.

Ian, Willie is too scared to have a debate with me. He has no interest in any venue other than SLC. I have offered to debate on the SF911truth googlegroup, on Carol Brouillet's radio program, on 911blogger, and on visibility911. Willie doesn't have the guts.

The fact that he stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz is irrefutable. Unless he comes clean and explains why he lied, Willie will go down in history as a despicable con artist who stole his glory from the dead. There is absolutely no danger that he will ever dare to come to the Bay Area where he will hear it to his face.

Ian, Willie is too scared to have a debate with me. He has no interest in any venue other than SLC. I have offered to debate on the SF911truth googlegroup, on Carol Brouillet's radio program, on 911blogger, and on visibility911. Willie doesn't have the guts.

Brian, normally when liars are called out for their lies, they try to cover up the lies. You just repeat them. It's part of what makes you so entertaining. That, and your insane theories of 9/11: "meatball on a fork", "smoldering carpets", "magic thermite elves", etc.

My Bitch, Brian Good says: Ian, Willie is too scared to have a debate with me.Really?

He has no interest in any venue other than SLC. I have offered to debate on the SF911truth googlegroup, on Carol Brouillet's radio program, on 911blogger, and on visibility911. Willie doesn't have the guts.My bitch lies again.

What national magazine is shooting you? Arctic Beacon? Veterans Today?

Nope, I do not do those anymore bitch. I concentrate on National and International Media for quite some time. You should try it sometimes. Well I guess no mainstream media will cover you anyway.

The fact that he stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz is irrefutable. what a shame you could have asked me that in a debate, I would have enjoyed to introduce to you the Ortiz family in person. I guess we will never know, since you ran away from the debate.

Unless he comes clean and explains why he lied...I will come clean here and now...Brian Good is an asshole!

There is absolutely no danger that he will ever dare to come to the Bay Area where he will hear it to his face.You are fucking kidding me! you had the opportunity more than once to face me in a debate in your own territory bitch, and you ran away.

I didn't stalk anybody, Carol never says I did You did, Carol told me.Interesting how you also said:Carol will not have me on her show? That wouldn't be surprising even if it's true... Go ahead, I challenge you to have a debate with me on Carol's Show. Good luck setting it up asshole. She will never have you on her show and that is a FACT. I have offered to debate on the SF911truth googlegroup...you are banned there so stop lying. In fact, my challenge was posted there. Remember?

...on 911bloggerI spoke to them. They do not care about you or your views.

...and on visibility911and again you lie. Here is your statement-Willy, Michael Wolsey is very slow to get back to me. What did he say about the particulars?Asswipe, you are not welcome there either.So stop lying and go impale yourself.No need to loose time with you anymore.And finally, why are you still here derailing posts? how come you have not been banned yet? and finally...Oooo, look at Ian running away squealing from a chance to meet his hero Willie Rodriguez!well guess what Bitch, Ian and I will finally meet Tuesday at 12 Noon in front of the Path Entrance. We agreed in private to protect the identity. He told me he will like to see more info about you and get some answer from me. Go ahead ask him, at least he is not a run away pussy like you are.

Yeah, Willie, you're scared to have a debate with me. I've challenged you for years to do it at sf911truth or on Carol's radio show. Remember the email group two years ago after reprehensor wrote his lying blog at 911blogger called "William Rodriguez Vindicated". The group included Jones, Griffin, Casey, Barrett, Legge, Lawson, Syed, Alan Miller, Gage, and you. You could not offer one word in defense when I said your "blatant lies attract mindless, gullible, celebrity-worshipers; thoughtful people recognize him for a struttingglory-ghoul robbing others' graves." (2/27/09, 12:54) Barrett would not offer any defense for you either. I told him "Pretend you're a man." He had to send his clown Rolf in for distraction. There is no defense for you who steals his glory from the dead. None. You can acknowledge your crimes and apologize abjectly to true heroes like Pablo Ortiz and Frank DeMartini, or you can spend eternity as the Hudson River Whitefish that you are.

You claim you can get on visibility911 any time, so why can't you arrange a debate there? Oh I know, you don't have the guts. John Wright offered to guest host the debate on Carol's radio show. You don't have the guts.

You offered to come to the Bay Area for a debate moderated by Pat Curley. Pat is hardly neutral, his agenda clearly is to inflict maximum damage on the truth movement, and since he can't damage you (since you've already been proven to be a liar and a fraud) and he can't damage me (since people have already lied about me so much that more lies wouldn't make any difference) his only chance to inflict damage will be to rope in third parties. But you don't care about that, do you Willie? I do.

You threatened to cancel your 2007 Oakland appearance rather than answer my simple questions about your phony 22-story collapse. You are the coward, Willie. If you had any pull at all at 911blogger, at visibility911, or with Carol, you could set up a debate in one of those venues. You don't, and the reason is, they know I will wipe the floor with your lying skanky ass.

When you meet Ian, be sure to tell him to stop lying about the 9/11 widows. He says they don't have questions. He thinks lying about the widows is okay. Gee, you and he have a lot in common, don't you?

My bitch, Brian Good says: Yeah, Willie, you're scared to have a debate with me.We have seen otherwise here bitch.Remember the email group two years ago after reprehensor wrote his lying blog at 911blogger called "William Rodriguez Vindicated".You must be flipping, can you link to your lies? ...but I do have a vague recollection of something you wrote in blogger and Richard Gage came out and defended me from your stupidity. Remember that one? Ouch!You claim you can get on visibility911 any time...Anytime....so why can't you arrange a debate there? Oh I know, you don't have the guts.I said I can get there anytime. Not, "I can get an asshole there with me anytime". I do not control their sites there or here, or their views about you.John Wright offered to guest host the debate on Carol's radio show. You don't have the guts.I believe John Wright was also a victim of your lies about Carol, didn't you insinuated that hey had an affair?. You offered to come to the Bay Area for a debate moderated by Pat Curley. Pat is hardly neutral,his agenda clearly is to inflict maximum damage on the truth movement,... wait, didn't you said before...?There's no need to debate. Willie's not in the news, he's not on the blogs, he's a non-issue. He's a washed-up con artist, nothing more.Wait then until I am in the news and I am an issue, Asshole.I could not get any cooperation from Willie in finding another venue. cooperate with an alleged sex stalker and an alleged potential terrorist? you must be kidding me.

You threatened to cancel your 2007 Oakland appearance rather than answer my simple questions...your recollection is again based on your obsession with Carol. when she was so happy and excited to have me in San Francisco to speak, you became jealous and you felt threatened in your attention from her. You came out with an idiotic request and since I was doing a National Tour and was very tired of traveling, I gave them the choice. I didn't need the drama at the time and I did not need it now from an asshole like you. They override you. Then you started your obsession with me. You came out with lies and insinuations that Carol may have slept with me and you did the same thing about Barrett and Wright. Since you open the can of worms, let's have the debate and I will show how accurate my statements are. You have been lying here for a long time and I will welcome the op. to show you in your face where you are lying.

If you had any pull at all at 911blogger, at visibility911, or with Carol, you could set up a debate in one of those venues. You don't, and the reason is, they know I will wipe the floor with your lying skanky ass.

You are nobody Brian. You do not get it. Nobody in the movement cares about your obsessions. that is why you try to volunteer for every damn thing and make damage afterwards. Why are you gone from Richard Gage's Office? please enlighten us and this time do not lie like you did here in the past. I have the screen caps in case. You are a failed janitor. Take it from a professional Janitor (almost 20 years). You cannot clean your act, let alone clean my Skanky ass. I know you just want to turn me around but neither one is going to happen.When you meet Ian, be sure to tell him to stop lying about the 9/11 widows. He says they don't have questions. He thinks lying about the widows is okay. Why should I? do I also need to control IAN? You have been lying for a long time. You do not speak for them, or any of the victims asshole, we do not need you or want you. I know the widows, you don't. IAN told me that you were going to ask me that. Damn ! you are so predictable.

Brian , get a life, leave me alone, I told you , I am married and I am not interested. End of conversation with you.

Willie, while I recognize your sensitivities about bitch-hood, I can not possibly comprehend them since I have not experienced what you have.

Your lies about an email exchange that was witnessed by a high-level group only show your desperation. I don't remember a 911blogger encounter. Was that the one where Mr. Gage referred to you as "Willie R"? That's quite an appropriate pet-name, don't you think?

You will never be in the news. Journalistic ethics prohibit making fun of people who have lost their grip on reality.

There was nothing idiotic about my request that you explain your claim of a 22-story collapse within WTC1. I understood this to be quite impossible from an engineering standpoint, and I wanted to square your story with engineering reality such that the architects and engineers might get behind your program. Later of course I came to realize that you needed the lie about the collapse as a distraction so nobody would ask you--well why didn't you ignore David Lim's order and climb up another stairway to rescue your friends at Windows on the World?

Why don't you show me for a liar right here? I've shown you for a liar. Your claims that fire doors were locked, that you rescued 15, that you saved hundreds, that 22 stories collapsed, are all obvious lies. You stole Pablo Ortiz's story.

I no longer work at Mr. Gage's office because the 60-mile (one-way) commute got to be a burnout. I would not want to clean your skanky ass. As a blood donor I have a duty to avoid unhealthy environments.

So you've got no problem with Ian lying about the widows. That doesn't surprise me one bit.

Nice picture in your avatar, dude! You look like a movie star--like Marlon Brando after he got fat and ugly. Maybe you should audition for Jabba the Hut when Star Wars comes to Broadway.

I missed the show!well, Brian again is lying as always, Rodriguez continues to slap him and Brian continues to dodge a face to face debate. The usual.William, as you may know already, Brian needs to have the last word always. No matter how stupid he looks. There is no need to engage him anymore, he has shown already how lame he is. You will never get the real answers from him, not here, not live in a debate, not anywhere. I proved all about him in the past and he has not proven a single thing about me yet. He claims I am one of your sockpuppets but cannot post any evidence of it and when I also offered to debate him live so he could find out who I was, he also ran away from it. You are a hero and he is not. You know the victims, he doesn't.

I no longer work at Mr. Gage's office because the 60-mile (one-way) commute got to be a burnout. I would not want to clean your skanky ass. As a blood donor I have a duty to avoid unhealthy environments.How come somebody who had herpes in the past can donate blood?

Brian, you are gone from Richard Gage's for using his computer to attack Rodriguez and others.

You will never be in the news. Journalistic ethics prohibit making fun of people who have lost their grip on reality. Now, this one takes the cake! no need to even answer that one! Buawaaaahahahahahahahhahahahaha BITCH!

Willie's Bitch, Brian Good says: You will never be in the news. Journalistic ethics prohibit making fun of people who have lost their grip on reality.This one is a keeper. We can use this one again and again and again...

Brian, IAN also told me you were going to squeal like a pig after him and WR meets together. He also said the details are going to be private so you can grow more obsessed about them and they can laugh at you.bitchhood? you have been knighted! Brian Good is Willie's BITCH!

Brian Good, the bitch from Palo Alto, California says:You will never be in the news. Journalistic ethics prohibit making fun of people who have lost their grip on reality.

Exactly! the only difference is that it applies to you. That is why you will never get any coverage from any mainstream media and WR will.

Sabba, I never used Gage's computer to attack Willie. you are lying as always. You were exposed in 2008, by following the ip address of the computers originating send info. It came out (with your name on the e-mails) that they were sent from AE911 computer. When Gage was told on Radio, he was very surprised and told you to stop. After that, you kept attacking but it reflected to AE911 and again you were told to stop it. Richard Gage said this publicly about you:Brian Good has problems Willie R. I support Willie. But Brian has seen fit to find fault with him. We have discussed this extensively. As a result Brian has agreed to not attack Willie in public forums anymore while working for for AE911Truth...Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

My Bitch, Brian Good says:Willie will never come to the Bay Area because he knows that if he does I will stand right outside his venue with a sign 7 feet ...

His right to do it. Go ahead, I haver no trouble with that. I may also have someone right next to him with a 12 feet sign saying.Brian Good is an Asshole (and the reasons), Google: Brian Good Chickens out of a debate" or google: Brian Good Sex Stalker, Screwloosechange. And since it will be my venue, I can have a video of him inside the premises looping. Go ahead exercise your right. I have tougher skin than him anyways. Just for your own security, do not pass the 200 meter distance allowed by law.

Willie, your fantasy that I am your bitch only discredits you and not me.

I didn't chicken out of anything. You imposed the unreasonable conditions of Pat Curley as moderator, and you don't have the guts to set up something on visibility911 or 911blogger or truthaction or Carol's radio program or the sf911truth googlegroup where responsible moderation might be ensured so you can't through your cowardly employment of human shields cause further damage to innocent third parties.

You won't come to the Bay Area, Willie. You don't have the guts. And pay no attention to the silly things Ian says. Ian says the widows have no questions. Ian says the widows are invisible. Ian is a Hudson River Whitefish like you.

No 200 meter distance, Willie. You can;t hide behind the skirts of the law. You can call the police, and they might try to intimidate me, but they know as well as I that the public sidewalk belongs to the people, and as long as I am not blocking it against public passage, I have every right to be there--and I can pass out my booklet that details how you lied and stole your glory from the dead and poisoned the relationship with C-Span, with lawyers, with firefighters, with police, with independent journalists, with security guards, and with janitors--because they can all see you for the con man you are.

You won't come to the Bay Area because you know you will be very sorry if you do. Kevin Barrett is very sorry that he did.

Brian Good, the bitch from Palo Alto, California says:you don't have the guts to set up something on visibility911 or 911blogger or truthaction or Carol's radio program or the sf911truth googlegroup...

William Rodriguez on this thread: (scan up) Go ahead, I challenge you to have a debate with me on Carol's Show. Good luck setting it up asshole. She will never have you on her show and that is a FACT.

Brian the bitch says: I'm fine with the dueling signs. WILLIE LIES for $$$ v. BRIAN IS AN ASSHOLE. My truth against your lies. Easy win for me, punk.Easy win for William. Specially when he has the audience and you don't.

Was Richard Gage lying about you?

You will never be in the news. Journalistic ethics prohibit making fun of people who have lost their grip on reality.The most debunkable of all of Brian Good's Lies!

Brian Good, the bitch from Palo Alto, California says:And pay no attention to the silly things Ian says.Ian is right about you Brian.

No 200 meter distance, Willie. You can;t hide behind the skirts of the law. You can call the police, and they might try to intimidate me, but they know as well as I that the public sidewalk belongs to the people, and as long as I am not blocking it against public passage, I have every right to be there--

Obviously the idiot does not understand what WR says and it is trying to spin it. Bitch, you have the right to be in public street, but you do not have the right to do it in a private place, meaning inside the venue. What an idiot!Also Rodriguez stated before that you will not face him so go ahead and get on his face, we double dare you!. It will be what we have been waiting for at Screwloosechange and other debunking sites to see for a long time. Let's see WHO gets arrested. You or Willlie?... or both? and who will come out on top. ( we know you want willie to be on top).

and I can pass out my booklet that details how you lied and stole your glory from the dead and poisoned the relationship with C-Span, with lawyers, with firefighters, with police, with independent journalists, with security guards, and with janitors--because they can all see you for the con man you are.and he can pass out the booklet about you and your claims and how they are disproved and all the lies you have told here and all the poeple you tried to damage with your lies and obsessions. An easy win for WR.

You won't come to the Bay Area because you know you will be very sorry if you do. Kevin Barrett is very sorry that he did.

The idiot forgot that Rodriguez offered to fly there on his own territory and Brian Good ran away to a face to face debate. What an asshole ( like WR will say!) Bitch!

I didn't run away from anything. Everybody who offered an opinion said I should not agree to anything moderated by Pat Curley, that it would be bad for the movement.

I am fine with any debate moderated by a person who recognizes ethical responsibilities to innocent third parties--responsibilities that clearly concern Willie not one whit. I would trust visibility911, 911blogger (now that the willy-silly liar reprehensor is gone), Carol's radio program, the sf911truth googlegroup, the truthaction forum.

I am fine with a shouting match on the sidewalk in front of his venue. My truth against his lies. I learned when I was 14 years old--bullies are cowards. Willie is no exception. He won't come to the Bay Area. People here are wise to his bullshit.

One reason I wanted in 2007 to ask Willie about his tale of the 22-story internal collapse was because I wanted to promote his Oakland appearance amongst the Hispanic community, and I just wanted to clarify a few issues before putting forth the effort.

I was also considering organizing an event for him in San Jose.

At the time, Willie claimed that he had a vast army of Hispanic supporters. They have proved to be illusory.

You think I should have defied those who advised me that a SLC-hosted event was bad for the movement, and I should have gone forward with it out of fear that some half-wit liar in PA would call me chicken?

When SLC announced that there was going to be a debate nobody had even asked me. That violation of protocol made the proposition stink from the start.

You think I should have defied those who advised me that a SLC-hosted event was bad for the movement, and I should have gone forward with it out of fear that some half-wit liar in PA would call me chicken?

No, alot of Truthers in the Truth Movement want to know how much of a failure you are, so they would've come to SLC for the debate (which you chickened out) just to look how stupid and insane you really are.

I am willing to debate where there is responsible moderation to protect the innocent third parties that Willie has for years been employing as human shields.

Willie is unwilling to lift a finger to set up a debate in such a forum--for instance, at the sf911truth googlegroup, where I proposed years ago that we debate. The chicken is Willie who, for years, has refused to debate and who has been afraid for 4 years now to come to the Bay Area.

WAQ0, watching a building get constructed from the 16th floor across the street is the next best thing to constructing it yourself, and gives me more understanding of high rise construction than most people.

LOL! You have to be hands on with construction you goat fucker. You just can't stand there and watch. You know nothing of construction and you know it.

WAQ0, watching a building get constructed from the highrise across the street is the next best thing to constructing it yourself, and gives me more understanding of high rise construction than most people.

Brian Good, the Gay Bitch says:Hell of a commute to NYC from Johnstown.

Funny! only if you were a man of convictions. You only claim that:You won't come to the Bay Area because you know you will be very sorry if you do.How about flying to New York on September the 11th and picket William? You do not have the guts. You would not even dare to come to New York on that date. That is a FACT also.I learned when I was 14 years old--bullies are cowards. Willie is no exception. He won't come to the Bay Area. People here are wise to his bullshit. Rodriguez answer: I will face you in San Francisco

WAQ0, watching a building get constructed from the highrise across the street is the next best thing to constructing it yourself, and gives me more understanding of high rise construction than most people.GOLD, pure Gold again!!!I saw a liposuction performed on Discovery Channel, That makes me an expert to connect a Hoover Vaccum on your ass and suck all your bullshit.

Brian Good the lying Yenta said:Willie is unwilling to lift a finger to set up a debate in such a forum No. Willie picked up the phone and called your bluff on every single one of them. You looked like an idiot and the only thing you are doing is post dumbspan to cover your inability to face him.

You still claimed that activist told you not to debate him via SLC but you failed to post their names. You are a liar.

May 19th, 2011 at 1:49 am of course when I was discovered to be Brian Good by willie’s fans, I got upset and attacked back. I am sad to be exposed as a liar too. Do not google “Brian Good Sex Stalker” Please!

Brian the bitch says:WAQ0, watching a building get constructed from the highrise across the street is the next best thing to constructing it yourself, and gives me more understanding of high rise construction than most people.